24.06.2009 – On "Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals" by Immanuel Kant: Third Section I
Gaya Ethaniel: Hello everyone :) Gilles Kuhn: hello Gaya Dali Waverider: how about sending a new group notice? Dali Waverider: hi Gaya Gilles Kuhn: mmmh will confuse the persons that come online later Gaya Ethaniel: :) Gilles Kuhn: anyway I try a last time and we begin Gilles Kuhn: well now ay Birric Forcella: Actually, I don't seem to be able to get through to PH either Gilles Kuhn: yes seems last sl bug... Dali Waverider: if only. Birric Forcella: I'll tell them in person. Does somebody have the landmark so I can put it in chat? Birric Forcella: The landmark here Gilles Kuhn: well from now on the greys bugs bunny and baal kira will register all so beware ! Gaya Ethaniel: One moment I do. Dali Waverider: http://slurl.com/secondlife/BaikUn/225/109/251 http://slurl.com/secondlife/BaikUn/225/109/251 Birric Forcella: Okay. I'll be right back Gaya Ethaniel: k Gilles Kuhn: so after the preface first and second part we will begin our assault on third and last part of Kant fmm Gaya Ethaniel: I know we are on the third section but can I ask a Q on second section before we begin? Gilles Kuhn: sure ! Gaya Ethaniel: Kingdom of ends ... Gilles Kuhn: we will not forget the other part only use the third as well ! Gaya Ethaniel: Does Kant mean 'universal' by this? Gilles Kuhn: ah yes Gaya Ethaniel: We ran out of time last session. Gilles Kuhn: well it is an ideal notion of the world as it would be if all persons would consider universality in their maxim of action and seen the others as end and never as means Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok clear now thanks :) Gaya Ethaniel: wb Birric Alaya Kumaki: hi Alaya Kumaki: hi Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Fefonz :) Fefonz Quan: hey Gaya, all :) Gilles Kuhn: it is some version of Kant deals world interesting could be to read about his idea for universal pace I will search for the exact text reference Gaya Ethaniel: Hello Alaya and Zalgreth :) Gilles Kuhn: ideal* Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok ty :) Gilles Kuhn: so any specific question of understanding about third (or another) part someone ? Birric Forcella: There weren't many people there. I think some are coming Birric Forcella: So let's start Gilles Kuhn: we have already done Birric thank Gilles Kuhn: so let’s begin by sheer comprehension of the text any question about that? Gaya Ethaniel: Well ... I wouldn't claim 'sheer understanding' of the text no >.< Gilles Kuhn: Kant try in the last part to see how effectively the categoretical imperative is possible further than in a pure analytical form Gaya Ethaniel: I want to find a particular sentence I'm not sure of ... one moment. Gilles Kuhn: and he underline that what make it possible his the notion of freedom Gilles Kuhn: yes Gaya Gilles Kuhn: so (waiting for Gaya to find her piece) freedom is the big topic of the third section Alaya Kumaki: ty Dali Dali Waverider: np Gaya Ethaniel: Since however, the world of understanding contains the foundation of the world of sense, and consequently of its laws also, and accordingly gives the law to my will (which belongs wholly to the world of understanding) directly ... Gilles Kuhn: to understand Kant treatment of this very problematic notion you have to remember that for Kant our knowledge of the world is only phenomenal we can infer the existence of a world out of our understanding from which emanate our sensitive intuition (+-sense data if you prefer) Gilles Kuhn: yes I was justly speaking of that perfect Gaya Ethaniel: This concept quite confusing Gaya Ethaniel: ah ok Gilles Kuhn: understanding in Kant crp is what permit to arrange the otherwise chaotics sensitive intuition i e your direct perceptions of phenomena Gilles Kuhn: from the understanding you can infer laws of the natural phenomenas Gilles Kuhn: your will is the action of you on thesse phenomena on the world if you prefer Gaya Ethaniel: Well how does 'world of understanding' contains *foundation* of 'world of sense'? I don't think Kant expands on this. Gaya Ethaniel: agree that those overlap though Birric Forcella: crp = critique de raison pratique = CPR - Critique of Pure Reason = Kritik der Reinen Vernunft Gilles Kuhn: so the will act on the phenomena that derive from the things in itself that are the noumena who are impossible to know but you know the phenomena that emanate from them and your understanding treat them and create law of them Gaya Ethaniel: ah .. thanks Birric, I though that was one of Gilles' typos ^^;;; Gilles Kuhn: lol Gilles Kuhn: and the reason is able to derive idea who are pure things that don’t need to depend of the nature of the world Jay India: gee what a lengthy discourse. Gilles Kuhn: well remember that morals is not about nature or the world is about your reason and the intention you have in the same way idea like the idea of liberty are not about nature or the world (who is as world too an idea of reason) Gaya Ethaniel: Overlap in a sense that we are in both 'worlds' I meant* Gilles Kuhn: for Kant nature is subjected to the law of causality who are created by understanding but the moral decision cannot be subjected to natural causal law because that would imply an heteronomy that would impeach freedom : there is no freedom and no morals (object of) if our reason and will is subjected to natural causal laws Gilles Kuhn: yes indeed for Kant there is the natural "world" and thee intelligible one Gaya Ethaniel: So Gilles, does Kant explain how world of sense is contained within intelligible one? Because I can't see how this is the case ... Gilles Kuhn: they overlap but for any practical or theoretical reason the sheer constitution of us as reasonnable subject make them separate Gaya Ethaniel: hm ... ok make sense in that light ... Jay India: I'll have to read that and come back..ty for the point. Gaya Ethaniel: Bye Jay :) Gaya Ethaniel: Then what are these 'worlds' made of? Ideas, thoughts and emotions? Gilles Kuhn: for Kant pure sense what he call sensitive intuition are chaotic and only make sense when they are treated by understanding and too by the synthetical apriori categories of time and space Gilles Kuhn: well the natural world the world of noumena is a mystery we cannot know anything of it we just postulate his existence Gilles Kuhn: we know the wolrd pf phenomena who are the result of the processing by our mind of our sense Alaya Kumaki: well reason is time and space directed itself , concepts are created according to that Gilles Kuhn: from this we infer what we call natural law Gilles Kuhn: well Alaya understanding is that stage and reason came has a higher process Gilles Kuhn: but we are falling on the sweet arms of crp again....;-) Gaya Ethaniel: I disagree with him .... I think it is possible to gain certain knowledge of the world of understanding. What I mean is we are capable of it to a degree. Gilles Kuhn: and Gaya the concept of word is too an idea of reason for Kant it is part of the intelligible world Gaya Ethaniel: Otherwise we wouldn't have reason. Gilles Kuhn: oh of understanding yes ! Gilles Kuhn: concept of world* (damn keyb and sl lag) Gaya Ethaniel: I think he says 'world of sense' and 'world of understanding'. Gilles Kuhn: yes the raw sense are made possible to understand thanks to the understanding Gaya Ethaniel: ah ... ok Gilles Kuhn: you organise all your sensitive intuition (= perception) in the categories of space and time Gilles Kuhn: so to try to came back a bit on the problem of freedom Gaya Ethaniel: thought Kant treated 'world of understanding' and 'intelligible world' same, sorry Gilles Kuhn: the general idea is that you are purely free in the intelligigble world of reason and that this world exist only due to this freedom if no reason not freedom Gilles Kuhn: (not exaclty same but these notions are well difficult at first reading) Gaya Ethaniel nods ... XD Gaya Ethaniel: This book should have been at least 500 pages I tell you. Gilles Kuhn: try the crp....:-) Gilles Kuhn: same density and 500 pages.... Alaya Kumaki: is it what we can call, we are free, in our free interpretation or the world Gaya Ethaniel: ^^;;; Gilles Kuhn: at a certain level Alaya yes but what do you mean more exactly by free interpretation of the world? Gaya Ethaniel: Free in the sense that it can be influenced by something external as well as internal - hence choice I think. Gilles Kuhn: well justly Gaya free is not to be influence at all by any externalities ! Gaya Ethaniel: Real freedom yes I know, I was talking about freedom in 'free will'. Gilles Kuhn: freedom is strictly intelligible domain and intelligible is strictly internal : it is a product of our own reason as rational beings Alaya Kumaki: I mean the law we create or any concepts , to reason our world, that our senses perceive, our translations is free Gaya Ethaniel: That's what Kant says as far as I understood ... Gilles Kuhn: yes that exactly the will is subjected to external influence Gaya Ethaniel: Hence choice -> freedom* Gilles Kuhn: and the moral decision is to subject the will only to reason disregarding these external influences Alaya Kumaki: but I consider even this intelectiualisation world, as having laws, I’m not sure that it’s so free ,,of principle, mind in under laws itself.. Gilles Kuhn: yes the laws that you give to yourself the law of reason is to say the law of the universality of statement : of coherence Gaya Ethaniel: I know Alaya, we have external limitations imposed on us, some more/less than us depending where they are. Gilles Kuhn: not the natural causal law the internal law of being coherent with one reason and to implement that on our will Gaya Ethaniel: I think what Kant talks about can be easily applied to personal decisions. Gilles Kuhn: and the idea that our reason is not subjected to the external causal law is the angular and bigger claim of Kant that s the postulate of absolute free will Gaya Ethaniel: persona/everyday mundane decisions* Gaya Ethaniel: Anyway, I don't recall Kant talking about how to implement these moral decisions >.< Gaya Ethaniel: Anyway, I don't recall Kant talking about how to implement these moral decisions >.< Gilles Kuhn: well a more provocative manner of exposing is cat imp is "act always freely (i e coherently with your own reason)" Gaya Ethaniel: And there are times my reasoning won't be accepted by others. Gilles Kuhn: implementation is not the problem the problem is intention and if you have truly the intention you will act in the best way you can find to implement them (but if you fail after sincerely trying it is due to your lack of world knowledge r hability not of your lack of morality) Gilles Kuhn: ah yes Gaya the big problem in Kant is that he think reason is absolutely transcendent and so perfectly universal... well perhaps it is the case for god ;-) Gaya Ethaniel: Yes Kant emphasises on intention ... do my best so to speak which I can accept. Gaya Ethaniel: I'm definitely human last time I checked ... or a bunny :) Gilles Kuhn: please I have already wrecked a workshop today for a duck :-) Gaya Ethaniel: heheheheh Alaya Kumaki: I believe that reasons is submitted in its law of coherence, freely chosen as I understood , is still under the relation laws, the sense you make of something, is submitted to the relations,, its related ,,to another concept, :taken maybe in the internalisation of the senses, as the direction again Gilles Kuhn: yes reason is subjected to coherence true but what things that are expressed in language are not? Alaya Kumaki: I see Gilles Kuhn: and the relation no your reason is not submitted to external relation she can investigate them but not being submitted to them Gilles Kuhn: (well so said Kant) Gaya Ethaniel: If I understand correctly what Kant meant by reason, coming from a world that is unknownable, I am inclined to say it's beyond relative or absolute. Alaya Kumaki: oh im talking about internal relations made in intelectualisations world.. between concepts Gilles Kuhn: indeed but we are on crp again ! :-) Gaya Ethaniel: ooops I didn't mean to do that :( Gilles Kuhn: ah that Alaya yes sure but again that crp stuff Alaya Kumaki: hehe. it slips in this direction, maybe an habit Gaya Ethaniel: :) Gilles Kuhn: and after we end this part of Kant moral I need a Kant break :-) Gaya Ethaniel: Me too desperately! Gilles Kuhn: so no next subject will not be the crp Gaya Ethaniel: At least I need time to re-read Fundamentals before we go on to CPR Gilles Kuhn: if the kira ask me that (doing what we have done with fmm with crp) I need a full tme job :-) Gaya Ethaniel: :D Birric Forcella: Do you still want me to interpose with Birric on Ethics? - as a counterpoint to Kant? Gilles Kuhn: well official time up I would love to continue but I need badly to eat some duck bunny cow or whatever Category:Session transcripts